How Far Do You Agree That Garibaldi Played a More

How far do you agree that Garibaldi played a more important part than Cavour in the Unification of Italy? Garibaldi and Cavour were two very influential people in the unification for Italy and without them the unification may not have occurred. Although they both ultimately wanted the same thing, the unification of Italy, they went about it in different ways. Cavour was a highly intellectual man, who orchestrated things from a political stand point ensuring good relations with countries like France, of which without the unification may never have succeeded. Garibaldi on the other hand was more of people’s person, a leader of men who was very direct and his actions such as the taking of Naples and Sicily allowed Italy to unite properly and not remain just an extended Piedmont. Cavour’s main contribution to the unification of Italy would probably be the fact he had gotten France and Napoleon on side and without this it is very doubtful that the Risorgimento would have succeeded. Cavour did this through politics and this also got Italy recognised at a world stage, gaining a seat the peace conference held in Paris after the Crimean war held in 1856. This conference allowed Cavour to become friends with Napoleon, and this was a very important part in the unification of Italy as it would foreshadow things to come. However how much Cavour wanted Piedmont to enter the war is questionable and was probably more down to Victor Emmanuel. Cavour’s role as Prime minister was very important as it allowed him to make these ties with France and show his political cunningness, e.g. at the meeting in Plombières where he gained the support of France against Austria. It also allowed him to act through the king Victor Emmanuel, and while Cavour himself wasn’t such a popular public figure he could ensure the King was by writing such speeches for him as the ‘Grido di dolore’ something which became a catch phrase amongst Italian people. Possibly it was best for Cavour that he wasn’t...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿Howfardoyouagree that the failure of Italian revolutionaries in the years 1820–49 was primarily due to a lack of popular support?
I agree that the revolutions that occurred in the years 1820-49 were due to a lack of popular support. Other factors could be the strength of the Austria army, how there was no leader, a lack of unity and no foreign support.
The revolutions failed due to the lack of popular/mass support. The revolutions in Modena, Parma and the Papal States had all been unsuccessful as The peasants that made up the majority of the population were generally not interested in unification. This is not surprising, since unification would not have had any tangible benefits for them. They were more interested in their immediate economic conditions; whether they had enough food. The peasants could only be used to help bring about unification when they rioted due to economic depressions and food shortages. The main supporters of Italian unification were, instead, the middle and upper classes therefore possibly the reason why the revolutions failed was due to the lack of support
Another reason for Italian Unification failure was the influence of Austria over Italian provinces. Austria had very strong domination over Italy. It had agreements with Ferdinand, king of Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies, and helped the pope maintain his kingdom. Only Piedmont Sardinia...

...﻿Howfardoyouagree that instability in the Gulf Region in the period 1979-2001 was primarily caused by the actions of the Iraqi Government?
The Iraqi government in the period from 1979 to 2001 was under the control of the Ba’ath Party and lead by Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim whereas most of Iraq is Shiite Muslim. Hussein took control-as in became President of Iraq-in 1979, following the resignation of his predecessor, under claims of poor health. The main countries in this Gulf region may be noted as Iraq, the larger Iran and the much smaller Kuwait, as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The Iran-Iraq war, initiated by the Iraqi government, would be an important source of instability in the Gulf region even after its conclusion. The Iran-Iraq war was fought from 1980-88 and may have been started by the Iraqi government in orders to expand their coastline and gain full control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. However it is more likely that Saddam Hussein was fearful of being overthrown by the new Iranian regime, and felt that an opportunity now existed to attack his prime rival. The course of the war would largely be a stalemate after the initial Iraqi advances, and became a similar situation to the one of the First World War. The economic and political fallout was immense. At least half a million people died, and upper estimates stretch to 1.5 million, while neither side had achieved...

...‘The French Revolution was a revolution of the peasantry’. Howfardoyouagree?
In 18th century France before the revolution, the peasantry were desperate for change. The financial state of France was diabolical whereas Louis was spending money freely – adding to the crisis. Harvests took a dramatic turn for the worst, plunging France into more problems. This and unrest amongst the third and second Estates saw the opening of the National Assembly. So, as the peasantry were hugely involved in the uprising against the monarchy in this way – did the French Revolution continue to become a revolution of the peasantry? Or was the revolution more from the bourgeois and the radicals?
Freak summer weather in 1788 was followed by a harsh winter through to January of 1789 and left France covered in ice throughout the early months of the year. This, of course, meant that the peasantry found great difficulty in trying to grow their crops – leaving grain and bread supplies scarce for France. This marks the beginning of what could be seen as the beginning of the peasant’s revolution as they now had to fight for help; to feed their families, for money, to feed France. This lead to the ‘Great Fear’ which began towards the end of July in 1789. This began because of the lack of bread and the high prices for it. French citizens, before the crisis, consumed roughly 2lbs of bread per day – and...

...'Antigone is a thoroughly admirable character.' Howfardoyouagree with this statement?
Throughout the play, Antigone is presented as an audacious and unorthodox female character, whose actions
depict her independence and confidence. She dismisses the rules which she believes are false, and
honourably battles against her uncle's rule to bring justice to her slaughtered brother; her original intentions
suggest how important family relationships are to her. However, Antigone's reckless behaviour often causes
inconsistency in her beliefs. Majorly, nearing the end of her life, she begins to regret all her deeds of which
she had once glorified. Antigone's initial self-confidence and independence has been replaced with regret and
self-pity, thus making her less likeable and admirable to the audience.
In the prologue of the play, the audience is introduced to Antigone's strong and personal desire to bring
justice to Polyneice's unburied body. She states that she would prefer to be 'noble by birth' by remaining
loyal to her blood relations, rather than 'a coward in a noble family.' A majority of a Grecian audience would
have appreciated Antigone's strong desire to honour her own flesh and blood. Furthermore, it is revealed that
Polyneice's unburied body was not an accident, but had been forbidden a burial due to his disloyalty to the
city. With every citizen wary and 'afraid' of the...

...HOWFARDOYOUAGREE THAT PARLIAMENT MOSTLY COOPERATED WITH ELIZABETH I? (Explain your answer.)
During her time as the queen of England, Elizabeth Tudor had to make many decisions on matters both political and personal, such as new religious policies, whether she would marry, whom she would name her heir and also how much power and privilege to delegate to her parliament. The House of Commons and the House of Lords made up Elizabeth’s parliament; the Commons consisted of citizens elected by their constituency, and in the Lords there were around 100 hereditary peers and bishops. At the time, the reigning monarch got a lot more input as to what laws could be passed, and so when decisions had to be made Elizabeth was often very involved in the process. However, this occasionally led to disputes between her and her parliament, as they did not always agree on every matter. Overall, most of the disputes between the queen and her parliament were easily solved – mostly, when such an issue occurred, the queen exercised her prerogative powers to overrule the parliament, and through various methods such as banning topics of discussion, arresting any opposition and occasionally using her power of veto, she prevented any major parliamentary disagreements throughout her reign. In reality, she exercised her power of veto only a few times, and this shows that for the most part...

...﻿Howfardoyouagree with the view that the ending of The Road is unbearably pessimistic?
It is arguable whether or not McCarthy has one set ending because there are many possible ends in The Road. There is the literal end which is when McCarthy finished writing but there is the end of the focalisers’ journey on the road when they reach the shore, which was their destination, or alternatively, there is the possible interpretation that the end of The Road is when the man dies as he is a focaliser. Another area of interpretation of this question is the level of pessimism as “unbearable” suggests that it is so devastating that the reader couldn't continue even if there was more to read. I personally think that yes it could be interpreted as a pessimistic end (all three aforementioned) however there is also an inevitable spark of hope as McCarthy makes sure to create more narrative gaps instead of answering previous ones.
McCarthy ends the novel with the boy being found by a man who is shown as being the only colour in the grey world the book is set in, wearing a “gray and yellow ski parka”. The reader can infer that if it is anything like the jackets we have now, the yellow in the jacket would be extremely bright and prominent in a world so void of any colour, which could be interpreted as him being a beacon of hope in such a dull world, and therefore a beacon of hope for...

...“Nothing that is so is so.” To what extent doyouagree with this in relation to Shakespeare’s play “Twelfth Night”?
In Shakespeare’s comedy ‘Twelfth Night’, the main theme of disguise and façade is used to create comedy as the characters ‘conceal’ themselves. This adds to the confusion and consequently the characters, and at times the audience, are doubtful of what is real. Shakespeare makes it clear that ‘Twelfth Night’ is up for interpretation through the use of his double title ‘what you will’; he introduces the theme of ambiguity and therefore foreshadows the main concerns of the play and the idea that appearances do not always convey reality. Steven Holden describes the play as “A comic mediation on desire, disguise and inherent bisexuality “as in the present day, comedies are often thought of as being cheerful and light hearted. However in the Shakespearian era, comedies simply had resolution of conflict often being happy endings, even when the climax of the plays were dark and contained serious issues, a potential reading of the culmination of ‘Twelfth Night’.
In the Shakespearian era, Twelfth Night was a festival where traditional roles were often relaxed, masters would wait on servants, men would dress as women, and inversion of the hierarchy took place in many ways. This convention of comedy is used throughout “Twelfth Night” in order to create humour for an audience of this time, as the...

...“The national assembly did not achieve anything ...”To what extend doyouagree to this assertion
The national assembly’s aims one is able to expose outstanding achievements of this revolutionary
government mainly based on decrees of august 4 1789, declaration of right of man, civil constitution of
the clergy , legal and administrative reforms. however although certain achievements determines the
national assembly’s success they are also some failures such as lack of executive authority ,lack of
administrative experience and the devaluation of the assignats within a short time.
During the course of the revolution, the national assembly was to decree certain factors within their
concern. this was during the august 4 1789 session when the national assembly was able to proclaim a
principle of equal taxation for all the estates in France .the national assembly was able to demolish
exclusive rights of the first and second estates of having a green light to hunting and fishing. This was
fair on the part of the third estate as equality was served and promoted.
In addition the national assembly was able to declare the rights of man on the 26
th
of august 1789 were
it proclaims its fundamental principles of sovereignity, freedom and equality. Furthermore due to the
declaration of rights of man they was freedom of worship although this was a great contravention with
the church as they want their catholic church to be a...